Public acceptance of evolution

[killdawabbit]

nguypete:

"Again, I'm glad the Grand Canyon has fossils, but you won't find your missing link there."

Haha. I'm not looking for one. They aren't there. That's the point.

 

[gsdx]

nguypete:

"Again, I'm glad the Grand Canyon has fossils, but you won't find your missing link there."

Haha. I'm not looking for one. They aren't there. That's the point.

You don't seem to get that they're not there because they can't be there. That's like saying frozen mixed vegetables don't exist because you can't find any at Home Depot.

By the way, you've been here for almost a year. I think it's about time you figure out the 'quote' button.

 

[killdawabbit]

gsdx:

"You don't seem to get that they're not there because they can't be there. That's like saying frozen mixed vegetables don't exist because you can't find any at Home Depot."

You're right. They're not there because there were no transitions from one species to another. If there were there should be at least some, given the multitudes of fossils that have been found so far. And they keep finding them.

You're last sentence is ridiculous. The earth contains everything earthly. Home Depot is a hardware/lumber store. The analogy isn't valid. It's like saying Walmart is another planet.

http://www.justusboys.com/forum/showthread.php?t=317579

 

[fetaby]

gsdx:

"You don't seem to get that they're not there because they can't be there. That's like saying frozen mixed vegetables don't exist because you can't find any at Home Depot."

You're right. They're not there because there were no transitions from one species to another. If there were there should be at least some, given the multitudes of fossils that have been found so far. And they keep finding them.

You're last sentence is ridiculous. The earth contains everything earthly. Home Depot is a hardware/lumber store. The analogy isn't valid. It's like saying Walmart is another planet.

http://www.justusboys.com/forum/showthread.php?t=317579

And if that's the case, then homo sapiens should have fossils also, yet none have been found.

And if you ever doubt that Walmart is another planet, http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/

 

[killdawabbit]

Published in the February 17, 2005 issue of the journal Nature are new findings pushing the dawn of humans back another 35,000 to 195,000. New dating technology was applied to fossils discovered in 1967 by a team led by Richard Leakey on the banks of Ethiopia's Omo River. The fossils named Omo I and Omo II, were previously dated at 130,000 years old. The findings further support the theory that the earliest Homo sapiens first appeared in Africa before spreading throughout the world. Both Omo I and Omo II were classified as Homo sapiens in 1967, but Omo II appeared more primitive. That both lived at about the same time may provide additional clues regarding the diversity and the evolution of human anatomical early in human history.

http://www.fossilmuseum.net/paleo/paleoposts/Omo.htm

 

[opinterph]

… homo sapiens should have fossils also, yet none have been found.

Homo sapiens neandertalensis fossils have certainly been found, along with evidence of its cultural development. And in the case of Homo sapiens sapiens, there exists not only an abundance of actual bones all over the planet – living examples presently constitute the dominant species. FWIW, there is also speculation that a small amount of genetic material from neandertal was successfully passed into what has become present-day mankind.

 

[Corny]

this discussion is stupid. what the fuck are you talking about? there are a lot of fossils around that used to be "missing links", some completed a puzzle, some extended it and led to the search of another "missing link". we already know quite a lot of intermediate species. just look at the development of birds .. or the horse

 

[GM1985]

Wow. Am I ever glad What's-His-Name isn't here any longer. I don't think I could handle another 'discussion' like that one from earlier this year.

Haha, my thoughts immediately turned to that thread! I never did get over my nightmares of that someone offering to help me understand the Bible properly!

An interesting thing I don't understand is the hold that the Religious institutions still have over our schools in the UK! When I did my advanced Biology qualifications, I asked my teacher why we weren't taught Evolution and she replied that it was banned in schools by the church

Re-iterating what Corny said above, if you look at Bacteria, you can influence evolution within hours! How do people think Bacteria are able to evolve a resistance to certain antibiotics or other bactericidal agents? Then there's the similarities certain species share in DNA, adaptations to ones environment etc.

Personally, I'd rather believe in physical evidence that can date fossilized bones than some mad mans rantings of a garden with magic apples, oh not to mention the talking snake!

 

[killdawabbit]

this discussion is stupid. what the fuck are you talking about? there are a lot of fossils around that used to be "missing links", some completed a puzzle, some extended it and led to the search of another "missing link". we already know quite a lot of intermediate species. just look at the development of birds .. or the horse

"The evidence of fossils, along with the study of horse embryos, indicates that the horse series is a genuine record of biological change over time. Evolutionary scientists point to this as evidence of Darwinian evolution. However, non-evolutionary scientists say that this simply records changes within the horse basic type and that there is little evidence to suggest that horses developed from a non-horse ancestor. Since the magnitude and type of change represented by the horse series can be accommodated by both evolutionary and non-evolutionary theories it cannot, therefore, distinguish between them. At best, in terms of the origins debate, the horse series is neutral data."

http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/view/55/65/

All the pretty horses sitting on the bush are not evidence of horses evolving from non-horses.

"With over 140 years of horse
fossil discoveries and millions of horse fossils found worldwide, the data on fossilhorse species is fairly complete, with new species coming to light rarely."

http://www.nps.gov/joda/forteachers/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&pageid=146153

In fact, the example of the horse bush only helps non-evolution. So many, many fossils and not a single one showing that horses evolved from non-horses. Seems there should at least be one.

 

[gsdx]

You're right. They're not there because there were no transitions from one species to another. If there were there should be at least some, given the multitudes of fossils that have been found so far. And they keep finding them.

You're last sentence is ridiculous.

My statement is ridiculous? What about your statement which I've highlighted?

We (including you) are talking about missing links. Missing links apply to the division between humans and primates. Either you're not reading our posts or you're ignoring them entirely.

The fossils in the Grand Canyon are many millions of years old. Humans have been on this continent for only 13,000 years or so. Do the math!

They didn't develop here. They developed in Africa. That's why there are no missing links in North America (or, more specifically, in the Grand Canyon). They were never there in the first place. They were somewhere else.

You're looking for evidence in the wrong place, dude. That's why I made that 'ridiculous statement' about you looking for frozen mixed vegetables in Home Depot.

 

[nguypete]

"The evidence of fossils, along with the study of horse embryos, indicates that the horse series is a genuine record of biological change over time. Evolutionary scientists point to this as evidence of Darwinian evolution. However, non-evolutionary scientists say that this simply records changes within the horse basic type and that there is little evidence to suggest that horses developed from a non-horse ancestor. Since the magnitude and type of change represented by the horse series can be accommodated by both evolutionary and non-evolutionary theories it cannot, therefore, distinguish between them. At best, in terms of the origins debate, the horse series is neutral data."

http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/view/55/65/

All the pretty horses sitting on the bush are not evidence of horses evolving from non-horses.

"With over 140 years of horse
fossil discoveries and millions of horse fossils found worldwide, the data on fossilhorse species is fairly complete, with new species coming to light rarely."

http://www.nps.gov/joda/forteachers/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&pageid=146153

In fact, the example of the horse bush only helps non-evolution. So many, many fossils and not a single one showing that horses evolved from non-horses. Seems there should at least be one.

I'm just going to use your language because you can't seem to comprehend that just because something is an ancestor to something does not mean they'd still be able to recognize each other and reproduce.

Watch me win this argument.

1. You are calling an eohippus a horse.
2. You are asking for fossils of horses from non-horses to see speciation.
3. Now look at picture below:

Oh look, it's your "horse" evolving to modern day Rhino's and Tapirs (and evolution wasn't that smooth either, there were many branch off species that didn't make the cut and the current species of Rhino's, Horses and Tapirs are the ones that did... though there are some smaller horse species nearly extinct which will soon become just another side branch on the evolutionary chart).

I win. A rhino evolved from a horse.

 

[bankside]

I'm just going to use your language because you can't seem to comprehend that just because something is an ancestor to something does not mean they'd still be able to recognize each other and reproduce.

Watch me win this argument.

1. You are calling an eohippus a horse.
2. You are asking for fossils of horses from non-horses to see speciation.
3. Now look at picture below:

Oh look, it's your "horse" evolving to modern day Rhino's and Tapirs (and evolution wasn't that smooth either, there were many branch off species that didn't make the cut and the current species of Rhino's, Horses and Tapirs are the ones that did... though there are some smaller horse species nearly extinct which will soon become just another side branch on the evolutionary chart).

I win. A rhino evolved from a horse.

But a rhinoceros looks more or less like a hippopotamus that has been crossbred... with...say... a unicorn, perhaps. (Note that a hybrid animal, such as the hippopotacorn, is not evolution, unless you're trying to say that a mule is more advanced than a racehorse, which it obviously isn't because it's not faster.)

Anyway, the whole point is, hippopotamus is Latin for "river horse." River. Horse.

So basically you've only shown that a horse "evolved" from a horse. QED. 'Spose next you'll try to convince me that the Sea Horse evolved into the Tapir.

 

[killdawabbit]

gsdx:

"The fossils in the Grand Canyon are many millions of years old. Humans have been on this continent for only 13,000 years or so. Do the math!

They didn't develop here. They developed in Africa. That's why there are no missing links in North America (or, more specifically, in the Grand Canyon). They were never there in the first place. They were somewhere else."

"The latest archaeological discovery at the Old Stone Age ruins in Yangyuan County, North China's Hebei Province, proves that human activities began in east Asia some 2 million years ago, archaeological sources said in Shijiazhuang.

Chinese archaeologists unearthed more than 800 stone tools and animal skeletons left over by the ancients at historical ruins in a stratum dating back around 2 million years."

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200111/09/eng20011109_84248.shtml

"Backed by solid proof, almost all of China's palaeoanthropologists support the theory of "regional evolution" of the origin of man."

http://www.china.org.cn/e-gudai/1.htm

I never mentioned hominid missing links, I don't think. I'm talking about the millions of missing links from bacteria all the way to man. Not one exists.
I suppose the 'peers' will disagree among themselves. Which 'peers' are correct?

 

[gsdx]

I'm talking about the millions of missing links from bacteria all the way to man. Not one exists.

And we're talking that not every creature that ever lived becomes a fossil. We keep telling you and you keep ignoring us. That doesn't mean the creatures didn't exist. It simply means that there is no physical evidence of them that we've uncovered yet.

The only other explanation is that every different creature that has ever lived since the dawn of time simply appeared as they were/are spontaneously without evolving or adapting, and that is not logical.

 

[killdawabbit]

nguypete:

I'm just going to use your language because you can't seem to comprehend that just because something is an ancestor to something does not mean they'd still be able to recognize each other and reproduce.

Did I say "...ancestor to something does not mean they'd still be able to recognize each other and reproduce."?
Not sure where you came up with this.

nguypete:

...there were many branch off species that didn't make the cut...

And where are their fossils?

 

[gsdx]

And where are their fossils?

See? You're not reading our posts or you would have your bloody answer.

I'm done with you. Have a nice life.

 

[wooffy]

See? You're not reading our posts or you would have your bloody answer.

I'm done with you. Have a nice life.

It's a pity this brainless troll took over the thread.

 

[nguypete]

And where are their fossils?

God, you're stupid.

Here's the image I showed you previously of the family line coming from modern day Rhinoceros (of which there are currently 5 species - 3 of which are near extinction).

And now here's an artist's rendition of an extinct Woolly Rhinoceros. See? Nothing alike, but this Woolly Rhinoceros didn't survive into this era... nor did the Woolly Rhinoceros evolve into the Black and White Rhinoceros.

Like how Woolly Mammoths are in the same family as modern day Elephants, but they didn't survive, nor did they evolve into modern Elephants, but they come from the same ancestor.

And there are 3 more species of Rhinoceros which are critically endangered -- we won't have their fossils, we'll have their corpses and they'll become just another branch on the Rhinoceros evolutionary chain that didn't survive, along with the Woolly Rhinoceros and the Giant Rhinoceros.

NOW DO YOU FUCKING UNDERSTAND HOW THIS ALL WORKS?

 

[killdawabbit]

gsdx:

And we're talking that not every creature that ever lived becomes a fossil. We keep telling you and you keep ignoring us. That doesn't mean the creatures didn't exist. It simply means that there is no physical evidence of them that we've uncovered yet.

I haven't ignored you. I have pointed out that out of the millions, possibly billions, of life forms required by evolution theory, not a single transitional species has been found out of the millions of fossils that have been found. How long have they been looking now?

The only other explanation is that every different creature that has ever lived since the dawn of time simply appeared as they were/are spontaneously without evolving or adapting, and that is not logical.

Maybe it isn't logical to you but that's what the evidence shows. You haven't give me any evidence to the contrary. You simply start with an unproven presuppostion.

 

[gsdx]

The only other explanation is that every different creature that has ever lived since the dawn of time simply appeared as they were/are spontaneously without evolving or adapting, and that is not logical.

Maybe it isn't logical to you but that's what the evidence shows.

To borrow a phrase from a fellow Jubber who gave me permission to borrow it, "It's a shame that stupidity isn't painful."

Show us one iota of evidence which supports spontaneous creation for every creature and every plant and every human on Earth. You can't because it doesn't exist.